> Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it”
The parties don't purport to disagree on the issue; one party paints it as a point of disagreement, but even that is just using the term as a coded reference to a real disagreement on race policy, not a reference to a disagreement on the policy suggested by what the words otherwise seem to mean.
> I wonder if states rights is one of those issues.
“States rights” isn't, because it's not an actual issue, it's a slogan for an issue people don't like to directly describe.
Now, you could come up with a model of a coherent set of protected zones of state authority and try to organize a movement around them, but that's not an existing ideology that is getting lip service but no actual support, it would be a whole new issue.
Yes, agreed on all points. I'm just saying that "whole new issue" would take the wind out of the fake talking points version of the "states rights" debate, and draw some of those voters.
The parties don't purport to disagree on the issue; one party paints it as a point of disagreement, but even that is just using the term as a coded reference to a real disagreement on race policy, not a reference to a disagreement on the policy suggested by what the words otherwise seem to mean.
> I wonder if states rights is one of those issues.
“States rights” isn't, because it's not an actual issue, it's a slogan for an issue people don't like to directly describe.
Now, you could come up with a model of a coherent set of protected zones of state authority and try to organize a movement around them, but that's not an existing ideology that is getting lip service but no actual support, it would be a whole new issue.